Cardinal Blase Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago, is planning at an event scheduled for Nov. 3 to give Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) a "Lifetime Achievement Award, for his work with immigrants."

Several other Catholic bishops, however, have spoken out against Cardinal Cupich's plan, citing Durbin's record on abortion.

"I was shocked to learn that the Archbishop of Chicago, Blase Cardinal Cupich, plans to bestow a lifetime achievement award on Sen. Richard Durbin through the archdiocese's office of human dignity and solidarity," Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, wrote in First Things.

"Sen. Durbin's appalling record on the foundational issue of unborn human life renders him unfit to receive the proposed award or any Catholic honor," he said.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco attached Bishop Paprocki's First Things article to a posting on X.

"Imagine this: a prominent member of the U.S. Senate has a very strong record on defending the human dignity of life in the womb but also advocates for funding for Border Patrol agents to shoot people trying to enter the country illegally," Archbishop Cordileone wrote in this posting. "Would anyone think it reasonable to honor such a senator for the senator's pro-life record on abortion? No one who advocates for the direct, intentional killing of innocent human life should be honored. Period."

Several other bishops also issued statements joining Bishop Paprocki in opposing the award to Durbin. Among them, as reported by The Pillar, were Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth, Texas; Bishop James Conley of Lincoln, Nebraska; Bishop James Wall of Gallup, New Mexico; Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay, Wisconsin; Bishop Carl Kemme of Wichita, Kansas; and Bishop James Johnston of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Missouri.

Yet, Cardinal Cupich has indicated he plans to move forward with this award.

"The recognition of (Durbin's) defense of immigrants at this moment, when they are subjected to terror and harm, is not something to be regretted, but a reflection that the Lord stands profoundly with both immigrants who are in danger and those who work to protect them," he said in a written statement.

But Durbin did not advocate protecting the life of an unborn child who came across the border in his mother's womb.

In 2018, Durbin questioned then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about Garza v. Hargan. This was a case that came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia while Kavanaugh was serving there in 2017. It involved an "unaccompanied alien minor" who sought -- and obtained -- an abortion while in federal custody.

Durbin put out a press release in which he cited his interrogation of Kavanaugh on this case and linked to a YouTube video of it.

"Durbin questioned Judge Kavanaugh on his dissent in Garza v. Hargan, where Judge Kavanaugh argued that the government had not placed an undue burden on an undocumented, 17-year-old young woman's right to obtain an abortion -- despite the significant delays that the government caused in this case," said Durbin's release.

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson -- not Kavanaugh -- wrote the most powerful dissent in Garza.

"In or about early July 2017, 17-year-old Jane Doe (J.D.) became pregnant," Judge Henderson wrote. "On or about September 7, 2017, she attempted to enter the United States illegally and unaccompanied. By J.D.'s own admission, authorities detained her 'upon arrival.'"

"She has since remained in federal custody -- in a federally funded shelter -- because she is an 'unaccompanied alien child,'" said Judge Henderson.

"J.D. was physically examined while in custody and 'was informed that she (is) pregnant," wrote Henderson.

"And it is highly like she knew when she attempted to enter the United States that she was pregnant, as she was at least eight weeks pregnant at the time," wrote the judge.

"Notably," she said, "elective abortion is illegal in J.D.'s home country."

Judge Henderson concluded that this undocumented alien teenager had no constitutional right to an abortion in the United States.

In his own dissent, Kavanaugh did not go that far. He argued instead that the government ought to able to follow its ordinary policy of transferring an undocumented alien minor to a sponsor in the United States -- rather than letting her get an abortion while still in custody.

The court's majority opinion, wrote Kavanaugh, "is ultimately based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand, thereby barring any Government efforts to expeditiously transfer the minors to their immigration sponsors before they make that momentous life decision."

When Durbin questioned Kavanaugh at his Supreme Court nomination hearing, he noted this passage from Kavanaugh's dissent in Garza.

Then, according to the Judiciary Committee's transcript and Durbin's YouTube video, Durbin said to Kavanaugh: "You argued that permitting the Government additional time to find a sponsor for a young woman in the case did not impose an undue burden, even though the Government's conduct in the case had already forced her to delay her decision on an abortion by several weeks."

"She made a personal decision that she was not ready to be a parent and did not want to continue her pregnancy," Durbin said.

Durbin did not call for protecting the life of an unborn child who came across the border in his mother's womb.

He does not deserve an award for protecting immigrants.

Editor’s Note: Help us continue to report the truth about radical politicians like Dick Durbin. 

Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.